Instagram has announced a new wildlife protection measure following a New York Times report on how some traffickers are using the platform as part of the illicit animal trade. In a blog post published earlier this week, Instagram said that it will start presenting a content advisory screen to users who search for hashtags that are, "associated with harmful behavior to animals or the environment."

This advisory, shown below, links to both the posts and a page where additional information on the matter is provided. That page, which discusses both environmental considerations and wild animal interactions, further links to TRAFFIC, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection agencies.

In addition to encouraging its users not to damage the environment in order to get the perfect shot, Instagram says:

We also encourage you to be mindful of your interactions with wild animals, and consider whether an animal has been smuggled, poached or abused for the sake of tourism. For example, be wary when paying for photo opportunities with exotic animals, as these photos and videos may put endangered animals at risk.

Users who come across a video or photo they believe to be violating Instagram's guidelines on this matter are urged to report it. The company explicitly states that it does not allow endangered animals to be sold via its platform, nor does it allow content featuring animal abuse.

Rarely do I drop the 'PC gone crazy' card, but I'll have to drop it here.

I'm not saying that trafficking isn't a problem, (it is). But I don't see how Instagram's response is going to make any difference. Much, much better, if they really are concerned, would be to review those posts that are, in their estimation, problematic, and take them down from the site. They may even go the further step to report suspicious behavior to the proper authorities. That >might< make a difference.

Out of curiosity, I tried to generate the warning message with a few hashtag searches. #ocelot, nope. #otans, nope. #endangeredspecies, nope. #wildlife, nope. #endangeredspeciesforsale, nope, (actually, hashtag doesn't exist. Too obvious I suppose). #tigersforsale, surely but nope. #parrotsforsale, DING DING DING, we have a winner. Apparently #tigersforsale does not constitute a potential problem for endangered wildlife, but #parrotsforsale does.

You would be surprised. While you suggest it won't make a difference to you, it will probably make a difference to others.

For example, the signs warning people not to feed wildlife certain harmful foods do make a difference according to wildlife wardens.

I walked past a park pond during the summer and there were a lot of people with children feeding mouldy bread to ducks. Later in the summer I saw new signs warning people about how this is harmful to the birds. No one was doing it. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Good point, though those signs at the pond site are directly addressing the problem where it is occurring. Instagram's message, while well intentioned, is equivalent to having a sign at the bakery warning customers to not feed bread to the wildlife.

Not so sure about that. :-) If someone buying bread at a bakery learned about the dangers of feeding it to ducks, they still learned about it. I agree, it would be an odd place to see such a sign, but on the other hand one might remember the message even better that way. (Just to be clear, I am not advocating for such signs).

That principle is used extensively by businesses that request responsible disposal of the product wrapper or container. They are not communicating a direct message on the function of their product, but promoting more responsible behaviour attached to the purchase. (In places where such warnings are mandatory, then replace "business" with "legislature".)

I think that the intention of these warnings can be as much to create awareness of an issue, as stopping a specific action in progress on the spot. Awareness normally precedes action.

I am not a big fan of "PC" either, but sometimes "politically correct" can be shortened to just "correct".

Albert Valentino True... and do you imagine that those algorithms are anywhere near perfect? Or Can be? They have to set them up to catch only the most blatant offenses... because they are incapable of discerning much in the way of nuance... and it is not too hard to use subtle language to mask what you are up to from a machine... hell, it is hard to INTENTIONALLY get your point across to people when you are trying to be clear... language is slippery.

Here it goes again. A company grows big and starts to do more than it is supposed to do, and thus, because of the crime of a few, most users will have to be annoyed. What's next? After you have made several searches for animals, a new message saying "We've noticed that you have searched for animals a lot lately despite of our warnings. What are your intentions?"

Online is part of the real world. You have to acknowledge that. With that come real world rules and regulations. Virtual stops being virtual when it starts affecting other lives including those of animals. Anarchy is what got Trump elected. Wake up!

@Dante Birchen Haha! What does Trump have to do with this, man? I don't agree with you. This is what makes the world boring and confusing. You can look at people in two different ways: trustworthy or untrustworthy. You can either consider a person innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent. When you do this kind of thing, you are taking a step toward assuming that the person reading the warning is somehow under watch or can be under watch.

If it showed the results and the warning, for example, in discreet letters at the bottom of the screen, then it was going to be ok. If someone is doing something wrong, they will eventually be denounced. This all-politically-correct attitude is a double-standard attitude typical of leftists. When you stop to see things closely, you see how this social justice warrior behavior is faulty.

That's why Trump won, by the way. Because of the left's hypocrisy. He's a president for people that are driven by facts, not feelings.

@Dante Birchen Well, move to a more socialist country and live there making twice as much as the average citizen for 2 years and than 3 more years making just the average, and you will change your mind about Trump. One suggestion: Brazil. The aveage salary here is about 1900 reais (575 dollars as of today, but things costing 2 to 10 times more, and you don't have access to 10% of what's available in the States). 02 years making 3800 reais and 03 more years making 1900. You have to start from zero here. Don't bring or use any money you already have. Do that, man, and you'll learn a good lesson. And don't bring your gear. As I said, start from scratch. Buy a new camera (and everything else, including clothes) here with the money made here.

@minababe, it is reak simple actually. You went in a long diatribe about how these websites suck. However, they owe you nothing because you bring nothing to the table. It is typical entitled behavior. You want a free website to do what YOU think is right.

@cali92rs: LOL, posts under the completely wrong section when responding to me. And still isn't making any sense. I rest my case regarding my earlier comments about this poster being intoxicated or under some kind of influence.

@Rick Knepper: Why? Because this is a typical scummy maneuver that all social media platforms resort to whenever there's a big PR scandal about bad agents abusing their site for nefarious purposes. Rather than just ban the bad agents outright or remove whatever is facilitating them, social media makes lame gestures like these that don't do anything about the problem other than make it look as if it's doing something about it.

It's like how Twitter a few weeks ago went, "Oh, yeah, we're totally against Neo Nazis!" and then just removed a little stupid badge next to their handles instead of banning them. This is what all these social media platforms do. They would rather give concessions to all of these bad agents than draw a line in the sand that will chase them off the site because, you know, even poachers and black market sellers are worth something.

Scummy social media...LOL. I love the outrage. You should demand a refund! Oh wait it is free...hmm. Nevertheless, they should do what makes you comfortable because heaven forbid a free product not satisfy its non-paying consumers!

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.